Yesterday, Bill Cosby's wife Camille released a statement defending her husband and suggesting he is a victim of vindictive women. The statement reads:

I met my husband, Bill Cosby, in 1963, and we were married in 1964. The man I met, and fell in love with, and whom I continue to love, is the man you all knew through his work. He is a kind man, a generous man, a funny man, and a wonderful husband, father and friend. He is the man you thought you knew.

A different man has been portrayed in the media over the last two months. It is the portrait of a man I do not know. It is also a portrait painted by individuals and organizations whom many in the media have given a pass. There appears to be no vetting of my husband's accusers before stories are published or aired. An accusation is published, and immediately goes viral.

We all followed the story of the article in "Rolling Stone" concerning allegations of rape at the University of Virginia. The story was heart-breaking, but ultimately appears to be proved to be untrue. Many in the media were quick to link that story to stories about my husband — until that story unwound.

None of us will ever want to be in the position of attacking a victim. But the question should be asked — who is the victim?

I am not inclined to speculate on the reasons that Camille Cosby wrote and issued this particular statement. I'm sure her reasons are more complex than I could even imagine.

And I won't comment on her assertion that Cosby is a victim, which is absurd, nor her assertion that Jackie's story has been proven to be untrue, which is false.

What interests me most about her statement is this: "The man I met, and fell in love with, and whom I continue to love, is the man you all knew through his work. He is a kind man, a generous man, a funny man, and a wonderful husband, father and friend. He is the man you thought you knew. A different man has been portrayed in the media over the last two months."

This false dichotomy plays expertly into the pernicious rape culture narrative that rapists are undiluted monsters. That if a man is kind and generous and funny and wonderful to some people, he can't also be a rapist.

That narrative is what underwrites every single piece of rape apologia which is some variation on: He doesn't seem like a rapist.

He is a good guy; he can't be a rapist.

He is so ethical at work; he can't be a rapist.

He is so nice to my kids; he can't be a rapist.

He makes great art; he can't be a rapist.

He plays such great ballsport; he can't be a rapist.

Et cetera.

But having decent qualities that are common among humans does not mean that someone cannot also be terrible. We're all some combination of good bits and bad bits.

In fact, someone who is a serial rapist, who has gotten away with raping dozens of women, is very likely to have lots of good qualities. That's how he's able to keep getting away with it. That's how he's able to groom his victims.

Most survivors were sexually assaulted by a person known to them. Someone they knew, someone they may have trusted, possibly even someone they loved.

Or still love.

The maniacal predator whose destructive sadism is evident in his every expression and action is a stereotype—a stereotype we've designed not only so that we might feel safer, with some imaginary ability to spot sexual predators from afar, but also so that we might turn victims into liars, sheerly by holding out evidence that the men who raped them are smart. Funny. Talented. Generous.

"Rapist" does not exist in juxtaposition to any of these things.

"Rapist" exists only in mutual exclusion from "someone who always and forever seeks enthusiastic consent for sexual interactions with partners capable of consent."

Rapists are not literal monsters. They are human beings, and often deceptively charming ones at that. They can be in one moment cruel, and the next kind, even with their victims.

To mask this reality is to uphold the rape culture, and to determine culpability for rape based on what we see, rather than what victims experience.

Those who say Bill Cosby doesn't seem like a rapist never get to the part that empathizes with his victims: Perhaps that's why they trusted him.

Shakesville is run as a safe space. First-time commenters: Please read Shakesville's Commenting Policy and Feminism 101 Section before commenting. We also do lots of in-thread moderation, so we ask that everyone read the entirety of any thread before commenting, to ensure compliance with any in-thread moderation. Thank you.

Today in Rape Culture

[Content Note: Rape apologia.]

Yesterday, Bill Cosby's wife Camille released a statement defending her husband and suggesting he is a victim of vindictive women. The statement reads:

I met my husband, Bill Cosby, in 1963, and we were married in 1964. The man I met, and fell in love with, and whom I continue to love, is the man you all knew through his work. He is a kind man, a generous man, a funny man, and a wonderful husband, father and friend. He is the man you thought you knew.

A different man has been portrayed in the media over the last two months. It is the portrait of a man I do not know. It is also a portrait painted by individuals and organizations whom many in the media have given a pass. There appears to be no vetting of my husband's accusers before stories are published or aired. An accusation is published, and immediately goes viral.

We all followed the story of the article in "Rolling Stone" concerning allegations of rape at the University of Virginia. The story was heart-breaking, but ultimately appears to be proved to be untrue. Many in the media were quick to link that story to stories about my husband — until that story unwound.

None of us will ever want to be in the position of attacking a victim. But the question should be asked — who is the victim?

I am not inclined to speculate on the reasons that Camille Cosby wrote and issued this particular statement. I'm sure her reasons are more complex than I could even imagine.

And I won't comment on her assertion that Cosby is a victim, which is absurd, nor her assertion that Jackie's story has been proven to be untrue, which is false.

What interests me most about her statement is this: "The man I met, and fell in love with, and whom I continue to love, is the man you all knew through his work. He is a kind man, a generous man, a funny man, and a wonderful husband, father and friend. He is the man you thought you knew. A different man has been portrayed in the media over the last two months."

This false dichotomy plays expertly into the pernicious rape culture narrative that rapists are undiluted monsters. That if a man is kind and generous and funny and wonderful to some people, he can't also be a rapist.

That narrative is what underwrites every single piece of rape apologia which is some variation on: He doesn't seem like a rapist.

He is a good guy; he can't be a rapist.

He is so ethical at work; he can't be a rapist.

He is so nice to my kids; he can't be a rapist.

He makes great art; he can't be a rapist.

He plays such great ballsport; he can't be a rapist.

Et cetera.

But having decent qualities that are common among humans does not mean that someone cannot also be terrible. We're all some combination of good bits and bad bits.

In fact, someone who is a serial rapist, who has gotten away with raping dozens of women, is very likely to have lots of good qualities. That's how he's able to keep getting away with it. That's how he's able to groom his victims.

Most survivors were sexually assaulted by a person known to them. Someone they knew, someone they may have trusted, possibly even someone they loved.

Or still love.

The maniacal predator whose destructive sadism is evident in his every expression and action is a stereotype—a stereotype we've designed not only so that we might feel safer, with some imaginary ability to spot sexual predators from afar, but also so that we might turn victims into liars, sheerly by holding out evidence that the men who raped them are smart. Funny. Talented. Generous.

"Rapist" does not exist in juxtaposition to any of these things.

"Rapist" exists only in mutual exclusion from "someone who always and forever seeks enthusiastic consent for sexual interactions with partners capable of consent."

Rapists are not literal monsters. They are human beings, and often deceptively charming ones at that. They can be in one moment cruel, and the next kind, even with their victims.

To mask this reality is to uphold the rape culture, and to determine culpability for rape based on what we see, rather than what victims experience.

Those who say Bill Cosby doesn't seem like a rapist never get to the part that empathizes with his victims: Perhaps that's why they trusted him.

Welcome to Shakesville

Welcome to Shakesville, a progressive feminist blog about politics, culture, social justice, cute things, and all that is in between. Please note that the commenting policy and the Feminism 101 section, conveniently linked at the top of the page, are required reading before commenting.